Australians were once again the world’s worst coal power polluters per capita in 2021   :(

May 20 2022
New Daily

As both major parties shy away from climate policy during the election campaign, Australia continues to have the highest coal power emissions per person among the world’s major economies.   :(

Australia produced 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person from coal-fired power stations last year, according to a new report by energy think tank Ember.

That’s roughly four times the global average, double the average per person in countries like the US and Japan, and more than any other country in the G20 or the OECD.

University of Adelaide energy economist Dr Liam Wagner said he was unsurprised by the ranking, given Australia has long been one of the world’s most coal-dependent countries.

“Australia’s current energy policy has been ineffectual, and has greatly affected our competitiveness and our ability to transition to zero carbon,” he told The New Daily.



Andrew Stock from the Climate Council, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the renewable and traditional energy sectors, said that “Australia’s had its head in the sand for many, many, many years” when it comes to transitioning away from coal.

The impact of this on the climate is tangible in a country like Australia.

“Burning coal on this scale is setting the stage for many fire seasons to come,” Ember’s global lead Dave Jones said.

Dr Wagner said the government hasn’t embraced the transition to renewables despite falling costs, and now the energy providers are playing catch up.

“We’ve been in this position and stuck simply because of policy uncertainty that we’ve had over the last 10 years, if not longer, and it’s really hampered the investment in renewables and made certainly heavy industry more difficult to move to lower carbon practices,” he said.

But the market is starting to shift on its own.

The march of progress
More and more energy providers are looking towards renewables as coal-fired power plants are closed years ahead of schedule.

Last year’s figure of 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person is down from the previous five years, when coal-fired power stations created on average 5.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person.

There are 19 coal-fired power plants around Australia. Most are scheduled to close within the next two decades.

“In fact, companies now are talking about how they progressively close those [coal-fired] plants even sooner,” Mr Stock said.

But experts say it’s still too slow.

Both parties have shied away from climate action during their election campaigns.

“Australia’s solar boom is reducing coal use, but there is still a long way to go,” Mr Jones added.

Mr Stock also pointed out that although the current rate of progress might technically be enough to meet the government’s “paltry” target of cutting emissions 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, the reality is more urgent.

“The science would say, and the Climate Council says, that we need to be cutting emissions by 75 per cent – so around three times the cut the government’s talking about – by 2030,” he told TND.

Labor’s proposed 2030 target is higher at 43 per cent.

“Both of the major parties are well north of the level of reductions that are required by 2030, based on the climate science,” he added.

The Ember analysts looked at domestic electricity generation, but Australia is also the world’s second-largest exporter of thermal coal.

“The impact we have globally isn’t just the coal we burn to make our own electricity – it’s the coal we export as well,” Mr Stock said.

Thanks sir Crook,
I am confused from your article here:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2022/05/20/coal-power-carbon-pollution/


Do those figures include the coal we export or
are they only from the coal we burn here?

---

We're also the #1 consumer of solar per capita.

I'm calling BS on the OP.

https://i.ibb.co/92ZpsyC/Screenshot-2022-05-20-08-42-38.png

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-solar-energy-is-consumed-per-capita-1965-2019/

Gordon wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 8:44am:

We're also the #1 consumer of solar per capita. I'm calling BS on the OP. https://i.ibb.co/92ZpsyC/Screenshot-2022-05-20-08-42-38.png https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-solar-energy-is-consumed-per-capita-1965-2019/

Yes - the opening post seems dubious -
it's not clear how they got to those results.

And despite that coal consumption we are still a carbon sink. Not that the Climate Council will tell YOU that. ::)

What utter bullshit. Australias so called 'greenhouse gases' amount to around 1.2% of the world total.  This 'per'capita' bullshit is just the rabid greenies way of trying to excuse the real polluters.  ::)

True. If it were only per capita emissions per capita that counted China could keep on keeping on until they caught up.

whiteknight wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 5:13am:

Australians were once again the world’s worst coal power polluters per capita in 2021   :( May 20 2022 New Daily As both major parties shy away from climate policy during the election campaign, Australia continues to have the highest coal power emissions per person among the world’s major economies.   :( .

I feel certain this stat includes how much we export, which is not invalid, but should be taken into account

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 2:24pm:

I feel certain this stat includes how much we export, which is not invalid, but should be taken into account

So only in the country of mining or at both ends?

Australia emits less than 1% of all manmade CO2.

Only sheep believe that we are one of the worlds worst emitters.

Ever wondered why the only give you emissions per capita, because of our small population we show up worse than the chinese who emit I dont know last time I looked 25% of all manmade CO2.

Wake up people....!

You might now that you will soon be paying for the free air that you breath over Australia.

The Greens don't want you to see this as it confirms
that any climate action we take is a drop in the ocean compared
to what other countries are doing to increase CO2 levels.
The Green targets are only symbolic yet they try to make out that
it will make a measurable difference.
The Greens are liars.
Now with Albo's minority Govt  the Greens will have Albo over a barrel.


https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/957/161/original/260a797e41aeb524.jpg

Bobby. wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 7:44am:

The Greens don't want you to see this as it confirms that any climate action we take is a drop in the ocean compared to what other countries are doing to increase CO2 levels. The Green targets are only symbolic yet they try to make out that it will make a measurable difference. The Greens are liars. Now with Albo's minority Govt  the Greens will have Albo over a barrel. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/957/161/original/260a797e41aeb524.jpg

The last sentence is true.  We have albo over a barrel.  We will do what's right regardless of dumb boomers sharing internet memes

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 7:54am:

Bobby. wrote on May 23rd, 2022 at 7:44am: The Greens don't want you to see this as it confirms that any climate action we take is a drop in the ocean compared to what other countries are doing to increase CO2 levels. The Green targets are only symbolic yet they try to make out that it will make a measurable difference. The Greens are liars. Now with Albo's minority Govt  the Greens will have Albo over a barrel. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/106/957/161/original/260a797e41aeb524.jpg The last sentence is true.  We have albo over a barrel.  We will do what's right regardless of dumb boomers sharing internet memes

Watch this:

Greens want to dismantle $379b of export income -
Alan Jones



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmfv28xgosE

Greens want to save us from the climate emergency.   :( 

whiteknight wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2022 at 5:59pm:

Greens want to save us from the climate emergency.

Just exactly what is the emergency?

Firstly, the per capita emission data is three years old, last published
by Ian Tiseo, on 14 April 2022.

And...

Australia had the highest greenhouse gas emissions per inhabitant of all
OECD nations in 2019, at 21.63 metric tons per capita. This was followed
by the United States and Canada, who produced 19.93 and 19.52 metric
tons per capita respectively.  [my bolding]

Also, this per capita reference doesn't tell the real story;
it's a country's total gas emission amount that's of concern.

Australia = 619.3 million tonnes annually,

United states = 5.8 billion tonnes,
China = 11.7 billion tonnes,
India = 3.4 billion tonnes,
Russia = 2 billion tonnes,
Brazil = 1.5 billion tonnes.

The old per capita wankfest.

Comparatively Australia is a large country with a small population. Added to that most of the industry is in the South East. That means long supply lines to the rest of the country. And most of the population lives on the long stretch of coastline.

Germany with 3.5 times our population lives in an area slightly larger that Victoria and Tasmania combined.

Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change

1,271,204 views  Aug 20, 2021


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 7:41am:

Firstly, the per capita emission data is three years old, last published by Ian Tiseo, on 14 April 2022. And... Australia had the highest greenhouse gas emissions per inhabitant of all OECD nations in 2019, at 21.63 metric tons per capita. This was followed by the United States and Canada, who produced 19.93 and 19.52 metric tons per capita respectively.  [my bolding] Also, this per capita reference doesn't tell the real story; it's a country's total gas emission amount that's of concern. Australia = 619.3 million tonnes annually, United states = 5.8 billion tonnes, China = 11.7 billion tonnes, India = 3.4 billion tonnes, Russia = 2 billion tonnes, Brazil = 1.5 billion tonnes.

A ridiculous statistical sleight of hand.

Why can't the Gretas of this world be honest?

(They wouldn't be catastrophising Gretas then, would they? Natch. )

Belgarion wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:

What utter bullshit. Australias so called 'greenhouse gases' amount to around 1.2% of the world total.  This 'per'capita' bullshit is just the rabid greenies way of trying to excuse the real polluters.  ::)

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

Belgarion wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:

What utter bullshit. Australias so called 'greenhouse gases' amount to around 1.2% of the world total.  This 'per'capita' bullshit is just the rabid greenies way of trying to excuse the real polluters.  ::)

On the one hand, Australia producing 1.2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions is quite high when you consider that Australia's population is only 0.3% of the world's population.

On the other hand, there is a large section of the world's population that does not use industries on a large scale that produce these emissions. And then there is the argument that various first world countries are using clean energy to power their industries.

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 2:23pm:

True. If it were only per capita emissions per capita that counted China could keep on keeping on until they caught up.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/hS36nlCKcm2vGDzdjY/giphy.gif

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 7:41am:

Also, this per capita reference doesn't tell the real story; it's a country's total gas emission amount that's of concern. Australia = 619.3 million tonnes annually, United states = 5.8 billion tonnes, China = 11.7 billion tonnes, India = 3.4 billion tonnes, Russia = 2 billion tonnes, Brazil = 1.5 billion tonnes.

There are 25 million Australians producing 619.3 million tonnes of gas emissions. The United States (330 million) producing 5.8 billion tonnes of gas emissions. The United States having a population 13 times that of Australia would mean that Australia would produce 8 billion tonnes of gas emissions if Australia had the same population as the USA. Or if the USA had the same population as Australia, the USA would be producing 446 million tonnes of gas emissions.

The USA is about 30% of China's population. But the USA is producing half the Chinese gas emissions. Australia produces 1.3 times the amount of emissions per capita that the USA produces.

Clean energy needs to be considered more thoroughly.

whiteknight wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 5:13am:

Australians were once again the world’s worst coal power polluters per capita in 2021   :( May 20 2022 New Daily As both major parties shy away from climate policy during the election campaign, Australia continues to have the highest coal power emissions per person among the world’s major economies.   :( Australia produced 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person from coal-fired power stations last year, according to a new report by energy think tank Ember. That’s roughly four times the global average, double the average per person in countries like the US and Japan, and more than any other country in the G20 or the OECD. University of Adelaide energy economist Dr Liam Wagner said he was unsurprised by the ranking, given Australia has long been one of the world’s most coal-dependent countries. “Australia’s current energy policy has been ineffectual, and has greatly affected our competitiveness and our ability to transition to zero carbon,” he told The New Daily. Andrew Stock from the Climate Council, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the renewable and traditional energy sectors, said that “Australia’s had its head in the sand for many, many, many years” when it comes to transitioning away from coal. The impact of this on the climate is tangible in a country like Australia. “Burning coal on this scale is setting the stage for many fire seasons to come,” Ember’s global lead Dave Jones said. Dr Wagner said the government hasn’t embraced the transition to renewables despite falling costs, and now the energy providers are playing catch up. “We’ve been in this position and stuck simply because of policy uncertainty that we’ve had over the last 10 years, if not longer, and it’s really hampered the investment in renewables and made certainly heavy industry more difficult to move to lower carbon practices,” he said. But the market is starting to shift on its own. The march of progress More and more energy providers are looking towards renewables as coal-fired power plants are closed years ahead of schedule. Last year’s figure of 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person is down from the previous five years, when coal-fired power stations created on average 5.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. There are 19 coal-fired power plants around Australia. Most are scheduled to close within the next two decades. “In fact, companies now are talking about how they progressively close those [coal-fired] plants even sooner,” Mr Stock said. But experts say it’s still too slow. Both parties have shied away from climate action during their election campaigns. “Australia’s solar boom is reducing coal use, but there is still a long way to go,” Mr Jones added. Mr Stock also pointed out that although the current rate of progress might technically be enough to meet the government’s “paltry” target of cutting emissions 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, the reality is more urgent. “The science would say, and the Climate Council says, that we need to be cutting emissions by 75 per cent – so around three times the cut the government’s talking about – by 2030,” he told TND. Labor’s proposed 2030 target is higher at 43 per cent. “Both of the major parties are well north of the level of reductions that are required by 2030, based on the climate science,” he added. The Ember analysts looked at domestic electricity generation, but Australia is also the world’s second-largest exporter of thermal coal. “The impact we have globally isn’t just the coal we burn to make our own electricity – it’s the coal we export as well,” Mr Stock said.

Australia emits LESS than 1% of all manmade CO2.

Ever wondered why they only ever talk of per capita.

If they told Australians that we only produce less than 1% of all manmade CO2 would that have a different effect on them..??

So what is per capita....???

A bullshit economical statistic that tells you SFA.

An example

Australia's GDP is about 1.3 trillion per annum.

Australia GDP per capita is about $51,800 per person.

What can you take from this....???

Everyone has $51,800.................nah not really

So what does it tell you.................!

https://i.ibb.co/jDr62kW/PCE.jpg

Quote:

Ever wondered why they only ever talk of per capita.

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

BTW, I think you'll find that "they" normally talk in terms of changes to the global average temperature. Only morons engage in your elaborate game of blame shifting.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 10:25am:

BTW, I think you'll find that "they" normally talk in terms of changes to the global average temperature.

You mean that intensive property that can't be added, subtracted, divided or multiplied? ;)

Belgarion wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:

What utter bullshit. Australias so called 'greenhouse gases' amount to around 1.2% of the world total.  This 'per'capita' bullshit is just the rabid greenies way of trying to excuse the real polluters.

Yes.  I agree with this.  The per capita emission numbers have no
validity—it's the total emissions measured on a country by country
basis.  If Australia's emissions were magically reduced to zero
tomorrow, it would make virtually no difference to the overall global
emissions figure.

It's the country's collective emissions that rate; not you or me, or the
bloke next door.

This pie chart tells the true story:  (crickets!)      :(

[What's the thing with the 100 posts before posting a link or image?]

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2022 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2022 at 10:25am: BTW, I think you'll find that "they" normally talk in terms of changes to the global average temperature. You mean that intensive property that can't be added, subtracted, divided or multiplied? ;)

Let us know when you start doing physics.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2022 at 10:16am:

Let us know when you start doing physics.

Already done.

"Hence, the temperature of bodies determines the direction of the possible spontaneous heat exchange between these bodies. Likewise, the temperature is an intensive property. So if one block of ice is at −10◦ C then adding another identical block does not make the temperature −20◦ C, but it does mean that melting the two blocks of ice can be predicted to use twice as much energy."

https://www.w3schools.blog/intensive-properties-of-thermodynamics

Then of course you would have to look at air pressure. An increase in air pressure raises temperature.

"Proportionality of Temperature and Pressure Atmospheric pressure and temperature are proportional, meaning that when the temperature increases, air pressure increases and when temperature decreases, air pressure decreases. The relationship between temperature and air pressure is referred to as Gay-Lussac’s Law. "

https://www.reference.com/science/temperature-affect-air-pressure-90b37da760fa9d12

So you would have to take air pressure into account. ;)

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/108/388/623/original/d7e17f63437924a5.jpg

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2022 at 12:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2022 at 10:16am: Let us know when you start doing physics. Already done. "Hence, the temperature of bodies determines the direction of the possible spontaneous heat exchange between these bodies. Likewise, the temperature is an intensive property. So if one block of ice is at −10◦ C then adding another identical block does not make the temperature −20◦ C, but it does mean that melting the two blocks of ice can be predicted to use twice as much energy." https://www.w3schools.blog/intensive-properties-of-thermodynamics Then of course you would have to look at air pressure. An increase in air pressure raises temperature. "Proportionality of Temperature and Pressure Atmospheric pressure and temperature are proportional, meaning that when the temperature increases, air pressure increases and when temperature decreases, air pressure decreases. The relationship between temperature and air pressure is referred to as Gay-Lussac’s Law. " https://www.reference.com/science/temperature-affect-air-pressure-90b37da760fa9d12 So you would have to take air pressure into account. ;)

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2022 at 6:17pm:

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

Which half? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2022 at 6:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2022 at 6:17pm: Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two? Which half? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2022 at 8:35pm:

Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

No. I answered. What do you want to know about the physics. Perhaps I can help you. ;)

I don't see an answer from you.

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

whiteknight wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 5:13am:

Australians were once again the world’s worst coal power polluters per capita in 2021   :( May 20 2022 New Daily As both major parties shy away from climate policy during the election campaign, Australia continues to have the highest coal

Coal power polluter - it is a moronic, stupid formulation. CO2 is not a polluter. Power is not a polluter.
It's emoting nonsense like climate action, net zero, climate denier etc.
Newspeak.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 10:17am:

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

You like to ask questions that you can deny you meant.

This halving - Is it population based? Is it by land area? Is it an Agrarian/ industrial split?

Until you post what split you prefer the question is unanswerable. ;)

But tell me about those physics of which you spoke. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Let's say north-south, by population. Feel free to explain why it is so important. Also how you managed to already answer an unanswerable question without anyone noticing.

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

Interesting trend.

---

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

Let's say north-south, by population.

At what longitude?


freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

Feel free to explain why it is so important.

I haven't said it is important. ::)


freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

Also how you managed to already answer an unanswerable question without anyone noticing.

But you said I hadn't make up your mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

No do you?

The per capita emission figures are just... uh... smoke and mirrors.

The IQAir (a company that tracks global air quality) reports the
average annual air pollution in every country around the world. 
Of the 117 countries analysed in 2021, Australia was ranked 9th
best country for air quality in the world, four places ahead of New
Zealand. Canberra was judged 4th cleanest air of the 107 worldwide
capital cities monitored.

Forty-six cities in Australia have the cleanest overall air quality in the
world, the report found, with Oceania having the cleanest overall air
quality in the world.

Quote:

No do you?

Of course not. But your entire whinge centres on the fact that China is such a big country.

If you split it up into countries with the same population as Australia, but otherwise kept everything the same, where would your argument go?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:00pm:

But your entire whinge centres on the fact that China is such a big country.

No petal. I said Australia was a large country with a small population.


lee wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 12:15pm:

Comparatively Australia is a large country with a small population.

It must be hard with your cognisance problems. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2022 at 5:00pm: But your entire whinge centres on the fact that China is such a big country. No petal. I said Australia was a large country with a small population. lee wrote on Jun 3rd, 2022 at 12:15pm: Comparatively Australia is a large country with a small population. It must be hard with your cognisance problems. ;)

Your whinge was nothing at all to do with the geographic size of Australia. We could be the size of Singapore with the same emissions, and your argument would be identical. Transport only accounts for 17% of our GHG emissions.

If you split China up into countries with the same population as Australia, but otherwise kept everything the same, where would your argument go?


lee wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 2:23pm:

True. If it were only per capita emissions per capita that counted China could keep on keeping on until they caught up.

lee wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 12:15pm:

The old per capita wankfest.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:

Your whinge was nothing at all to do with the geographic size of Australia.

Poor petal Can't even read straight let alone lie straight. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:

Transport only accounts for 17% of our GHG emissions.

Now tell us about Net Zero. You know the Net Zero that the satellites say is a net sink.


freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:

If you split China up into countries with the same population as Australia, but otherwise kept everything the same, where would your argument go?

Australia would still be a net sink. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So why do you whine so much about people using per capita emissions stats?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 8:35pm:

So why do you whine so much about people using per capita emissions stats?

Total emissions count. If you say it is per capita just let the Chinese etc get up to our level.

I'm not the one complaining about per capita - it is the bedwetters like you. ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2022 at 8:35pm: So why do you whine so much about people using per capita emissions stats? Total emissions count. If you say it is per capita just let the Chinese etc get up to our level. I'm not the one complaining about per capita - it is the bedwetters like you. ;D ;D ;D

Total emissions from what?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 10:19pm:

Total emissions from what?

Well that's telling. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2022 at 10:19pm: Total emissions from what? Well that's telling. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No-one knows what you are ranting about Lee. Not even you.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 8:12am:

Thanks sir Crook, I am confused from your article Do those figures include the coal we export or are they only from the coal we burn here?

Very interesting question, my boy - VERY interesting 

These figures are usually 'skewed' in the direction the data compilers and authors WANT them to go
And you'll find they're ALL very loathe to divulge any bias in their collation methods

We need to ask ourselves SHOULD emissions from coal - produced in Australia, but burned in China - be added to Australia's carbon output, or China's ?

Should BOTH countries take some responsibility ?

Should emissions from oil produced in middle eastern countries - but burnt in Australian cars - be a part of, say, Saudi Arabia's emissions total emissions, or Australia's ?

AGAIN, should BOTH countries take some responsibility ?

The graph below, I suspect, is targeting the country of fossil fuel origin

Needless to say, Australia is STILL 'hitting way above it's weight' in carbon emissions - no matter HOW you want to paint the picture

I'm not sure what New Zealand got so RIGHT, that Australia got so WRONG


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tadj-Oreszczyn/publication/251589639/figure/fig3/AS:269123783491586@1441175518305/CO2-emissions-per-capita-in-selected-countries-and-world-regions-5.png


.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 8:12am: Thanks sir Crook, I am confused from your article Do those figures include the coal we export or are they only from the coal we burn here? Very interesting question, my boy - VERY interesting  These figures are usually 'skewed' in the direction the data compilers and authors WANT them to go And you'll find they're ALL very loathe to divulge any bias in their collation methods

BINGO!

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 1:34pm:

No-one knows what you are ranting about Lee.

And yet you have spent pages trying to show me wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:16pm:

I'm not sure what New Zealand got so RIGHT, that Australia got so WRONG

New Zealand has a high use of geothermal. Geothermal in Australia has so far, been unsuccessful.

Frank wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:28pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11th, 2022 at 2:16pm: Bobby. wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 8:12am: Thanks sir Crook, I am confused from your article Do those figures include the coal we export or are they only from the coal we burn here? Very interesting question, my boy - VERY interesting  These figures are usually 'skewed' in the direction the data compilers and authors WANT them to go And you'll find they're ALL very loathe to divulge any bias in their collation methods In the way the Morrison Government 'fudged' emissions 'reductions' by Australia, over the last decade BINGO !

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:16pm:

Needless to say, Australia is STILL 'hitting way above it's weight' in carbon emissions - no matter HOW you want to paint the picture

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tadj-Oreszczyn/publication/251589639/figure/fig3/AS:269123783491586@1441175518305/CO2-emissions-per-capita-in-selected-countries-and-world-regions-5.png

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2022 at 1:34pm: No-one knows what you are ranting about Lee. And yet you have spent pages trying to show me wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Stupid. To be wrong, you would have to actually say something.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:

To be wrong, you would have to actually say something.

You failed again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Tell us what you want to know about physics.  Temperature? Pressure?

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2022 at 8:35pm: So why do you whine so much about people using per capita emissions stats? Total emissions count. If you say it is per capita just let the Chinese etc get up to our level. I'm not the one complaining about per capita - it is the bedwetters like you. ;D ;D ;D

Total emissions from what?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 5:34pm:

Total emissions from what?

I know you have difficulty so I will explain. Total emissions from fossil fuels.

So tell us about the physics you want to learn.

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 9:14pm:

If you say it is per capita just let the Chinese etc get up to our level.

Let's not forget who SET that 'level'

I take a WAY more egalitarian approach to comparative world living standards

Australia emits  3.91 million tonnes of carbon per annum
Each year India emits 2.44 billion tonnes
(I use India, as an example, having visited there on several occasions)

The Indian total is due to an ASTRONOMICAL population burning ONE 40 watt bulb - per household - every night of the year, as well as cooking dinner over a small, palm oil burner

Where do you think India should be making their carbon emissions cuts ?

Or should western, developed nations have a moral responsibility to do better ?



.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:

Let's not forget who SET that 'level'

Tell us. ;)


buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:

The Indian total is due to an ASTRONOMICAL population burning ONE 40 watt bulb - per household - every night of the year, as well as cooking dinner over a small, palm oil burner

You forgot the burning of wood and dung. Seeing as there are large parts of India without power I would suggest it is the equivalent of burning one 40 watt bulb.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2022 at 8:35pm:

lee wrote on Jun 9th, 2022 at 6:36pm: freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2022 at 6:17pm: Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two? Which half? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

Probably not
He habitually - and historically - must get in the last 'tit for tat' response
I don't PLAY his game

Preferring to let him play with HIMSELF


https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/food/main%201243827407_1024x768_up-film-2009-carl-fredricksen.jpg

a sad, lonely, petty, little man
.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2022 at 5:34pm: Total emissions from what? I know you have difficulty so I will explain. Total emissions from fossil fuels. So tell us about the physics you want to learn.

From where?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 7:28pm:

From where?

Any Physics textbook you care. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:

I don't PLAY his game

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 7:04pm:

buzzanddidj wrote Today at 4:57pm: Let's not forget who SET that 'level' Tell us.

So you are just playing with yourself. Good to know.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 8:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2022 at 7:28pm: From where? Any Physics textbook you care. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Again Lee, no-one has any idea what silly things are going through your mind. I am not after the correct answer. I am after your answer.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 10:24pm:

Again Lee, no-one has any idea what silly things are going through your mind. I am not after the correct answer. I am after your answer.

A physics book will tell  you the answer. ::)

What do you want to know about Temperature or air pressure or something else?

Or perhaps you don't understand the term "net" in Net Zero. That is simply the amount of sequestration we need. Australia's emission about 385 Mt to reach Net Zero we need at least 385 Mt of sequestration. Australia's sequestration is in the order of 600 Mt meaning Australia is minus net zero. I hope this helps.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2022 at 5:34pm: Total emissions from what? I know you have difficulty so I will explain. Total emissions from fossil fuels.

From where?